• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Standards Of Truth: Science v. Religion?

Are the standards of truth for science higher than those for religion?


  • Total voters
    35

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Are there different standards of truth used in science and religion? If so, what are they and which is superior?

If not, what is the standard for both science and religion?
 

Draka

Wonder Woman
Standards for science are higher. Religion is based on non-provable "faith" led theories. It is what is "felt" or possibly read in a book. There is no basis for "truth" for religion except personal feelings and interpretations of internal and external factors. Whereas science must be proven through repeatable tests and experiments. The standards are higher for "proof" and therefore "truth".
 

youngobadiah

New Member
Are people on this site simply non-religious or what! The bible is the truth. Its accuracy is perfect. It has scriptures in their which if scientists would yield to, could be used for greater good!
Psalm 104:
'15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.'
How long did it take for people to understand this! Lets admit it science has ruined our earth. one may say we have gained great things through science but look at the state of this earth now. Its nearly ruined! Why onn earth do you think Yahweh placed man in a garden not a factory and left Asdam to look after the garden!
I may be wrong on this bit but it genesis 4 it says
'7 Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech. '

Wasn't it Cain and his descendents who began creating these big cities? Wasn't Seth was it! Thats something to think about!
]
Science is non-comparible to religion. Its questions like these that get me angry. Any religious person should understand this. Can science save this planet i don't think so. Can science bring back the dead long past, i don't think so. Can science teach us to live the kingdom way of life, certainly not!
 

maty

Member
The bible is the truth.

Why do Priests convert then? Example:
Martin john Mwaipopo Former Lutheran Archbishop
Anselm Tormeeda 14th century CE Majorcan priest and scholar. From his book 'The Gift to the Intelligent for Refuting the Arguments of the Christians'
Abdullah al faruq Formerly Kenneth L. Jenkins, minister and elder of the Pentecostal Church
Khadija (sue) Watson Former pastor, missionary, professor. Master's degree in Divinity
And the list is long.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Welcome to RF, Young Obadiah! I think you will find a wide diversity of opinion on this site. Do you find value in that?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Draka said:
Standards for science are higher. Religion is based on non-provable "faith" led theories. It is what is "felt" or possibly read in a book. There is no basis for "truth" for religion except personal feelings and interpretations of internal and external factors. Whereas science must be proven through repeatable tests and experiments. The standards are higher for "proof" and therefore "truth".

What is lacking is sufficient evidence, not proof. Arguments such as:
The Etiological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
Argument from Design
Argument from Adaptation
The Ontological Argument
The Axiological Argument
The Moral Argument
And others. Some are stronger then others depending on who you ask.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
Victor said:
The Etiological Argument
The Cosmological Argument
The Teleological Argument
Argument from Design
Argument from Adaptation
The Ontological Argument
The Axiological Argument
The Moral Argument
Victor,

If one were approaching these arguments without pre-supposing god, how serendipitously would he appear within them?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
mr.guy said:
Victor,

If one were approaching these arguments without pre-supposing god, how serendipitously would he appear within them?

It all depends on your psychological state. If your a philosophical Naturalist, you can't think beyond "matter".

Personally I embrace the emperical plane and it's results. I just don't stop there.;)
 

uumckk16

Active Member
youngobadiah said:
Are people on this site simply non-religious or what!
Welcome. There are many religious people here. But not all of them accept the Bible as the truth or as 100% accurate.

youngobadiah said:
Psalm 104:
'15And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart.'
How long did it take for people to understand this!
Uh...understand what? That wine makes people happy? Except...alcohol is a depressant.

youngobadiah said:
Lets admit it science has ruined our earth.
Science hasn't. People have.

youngobadiah said:
one may say we have gained great things through science but look at the state of this earth now. Its nearly ruined!
We have gained great things through science. Medicine, anyone?

Draka said:
Standards for science are higher. Religion is based on non-provable "faith" led theories. It is what is "felt" or possibly read in a book. There is no basis for "truth" for religion except personal feelings and interpretations of internal and external factors. Whereas science must be proven through repeatable tests and experiments. The standards are higher for "proof" and therefore "truth".
I agree. Even religious beliefs that focus mainly on the use of reason - such as deism - require faith. Not that that is bad (note that I am a theist), but Draka is right - science is proven factually while religion is mostly faith-based.
 

mr.guy

crapsack
vic said:
I just don't stop there.
Linearly speaking, which direction are you careening in, though?

What bears questioning regarding standards of truth (i think) would be a small aside as to the dimensioning available for describing truth, in all it's big knobby glory!
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
mr.guy said:
Linearly speaking, which direction are you careening in, though?

What bears questioning regarding standards of truth (i think) would be a small aside as to the dimensioning available for describing truth, in all it's big knobby glory!

I lean toward parsimony and go from there. If my senses and emperical perceptions don't relate to it (which is long winded process through experience, etc.) then several possibilities start dropping like flies. Santa Claus dropped long ago....:D
 

uumckk16

Active Member
Victor said:
I'm lean toward parsimony and go from there. If my senses and emperical perceptions don't relate to it (which is long winded process through experience, etc.) then several possibilities start dropping like flies. Santa Claus dropped long ago....:D
What?? Santa?? You mean...he doesn't exist?? :eek: :ignore:

:D
 

krashlocke

Member
I would assert that there are truths found in neither science nor religion as both require faith - either in metaphysics or in empiricism. The weight of the standards for each is determined largely in the context of the society's value on each. The largely secular society of America, for instance, clearly holds higher standards for science, even using science as a "truth-determining" tool for the bible. Many middle-eastern societies, on the other hand, will hold religion to higher standards and will use it to prove and justify empiricism. It's simply too relative.
 

alexander garcia

Active Member
Hi, I would like to say something. If we look at the truth it is simple to answer this question. What does science state ? If we can find one thing wrong through out the book. Well can any one come up with this one thing? I have hurd many try but not one lagit answer. Now lets put science to the same test. Now because this is funny to me, I'll first give your answer . That was years ago and we know the truth now. HAHA Is the world still flat? cause science has MURDERED many people for not believing that lie from the devil. Now the question is how many more lives will be lost to science. Facists are based on science and evolution.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
They are two totally different systems with different standards. Comparing apples to kumquats never really works.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
alexander garcia said:
Hi, I would like to say something. If we look at the truth it is simple to answer this question. What does science state ? If we can find one thing wrong through out the book. Well can any one come up with this one thing? I have hurd many try but not one lagit answer. Now lets put science to the same test. Now because this is funny to me, I'll first give your answer . That was years ago and we know the truth now. HAHA Is the world still flat? cause science has MURDERED many people for not believing that lie from the devil. Now the question is how many more lives will be lost to science. Facists are based on science and evolution.

You make a number of wholly unsubstantiated claims here. Would you care to take even just one of your claims and back it up with referenced fact?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The problem is that many theists confused truths with facts. They are not always the same. Sometimes truth and fact are one, but sometimes they are not. Truth is more subjective, and more faith-based. The problem is that truth don't always require it to be substantiated with evidence that can prove or disprove it, and that's where the difference lies between truth and fact.
 
Top